Words to the Wise: U.S. military manipulation of the weather

balloonsIt always fascinates me how incomplete items presented online are readily accepted as the whole truth and go unchallenged. Additionally, they lack context and, often, the rest of the story.

Take, for example, the accurate report from Planet Infowars that the U.S. Air Force website includes a paper on weather modification, Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.

What the poster, Sandy, fails to mention is that it was a study document prepared by seven majors and colonels and dates from August 1996 — during the Clinton administration. The paper’s disclaimer reads

    2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

    This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

    This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

This is not an official document. In fact, it was never intended to be a confidential or secret document. It was an exercise prepared in an academic environment by high-ranking defense school students.

What the poster, Sandy, should have included with this excerpt, clearly presented to stir the emotions as well as the imagination, are some very important facts.

Full disclosure: Weather modification, also known as “weather control” and “weather tampering”, is one of the topics I researched and posted about in 2004, 2005, and 2006 at SourceWatch. This included the 2025 document.

Weather modification has expressly been forbidden dating from at least December 10, 1976, when the “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” was adopted.

The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; entered into force October 5, 1978; ratified and signed by U.S. President Jimmy Carter on December 13, 1979, with the U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.

This is not to say that Congress has not tried to sidestep the Convention. In fact, the most recent attempt came on the heels of Hurricane Rita.

A press release was issued just prior to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s November 17, 2005, vote to approve S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005: A bill to establish a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes, introduced March 3, 2005, by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). Hutchison said “It is critical that we assess and evaluate the efficacy of weather modification research to the extent that lives are saved and property damage is limited … This work is vital, especially as we near the end of such a devastating hurricane season.”

    “The bill would create a Weather Modification Subcommittee within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and would gather outside experts on a board to advise the subcommittee to expand the scientific understanding of modifying the weather.”

The Office of Science and Technology Policy was established in 1976 and is currently part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Referring to Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, as well as “recent tornados and violent storms in the Midwest,” Hutchison said that, “By developing sustained research we can provide answers to the issues of predictability and reliability of weather modification research.”

When introduced, the bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill stated that the act was to take effect October 1, 2005.

A companion bill by the same title, H.R. 2995, was introduced June 19, 2005, in the House by Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

Both pieces of legislation essentially died after leaving committee review.

Turning to the UN Convention, one examination adds another interpretation for weather modification, “weather warfare.”

It also draws attention to key words and phrases in the Convention:

    Article I:

    “1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party.”

    “2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage, or induce any State, group of States, or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.”

    “This Article of agreement reveals much of the capability of Weather Control techniques. We learn that such Weather Capabilities can produce effects that are:

    a. Widespread — can cover large geographical areas.
    b. Long-lasting — Such weather devastation can last for years.
    c. Severe — “severe damage, destruction, and injury”.

    Article II:

    Weather control, referred to here as “environmental modification techniques”, means “any technique for changing — through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes — the dynamics, composition, or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, or of outer space.”

    Examples would be:

      . Manipulation of a natural process could be altering the flow of the Jet Stream.

      . Controlling the dynamics could, again, include the Jet Stream as well as creating rainstorms, thunder and lightening, and hail.

      . A change in the “composition or structure of the earth” could refer to earthquakes.

      . Damage, injury, or destruction of the “biota” of a nation translates to damage, injury, or destruction of “animal and plant life of a particular region considered as a total ecological entity”. In other words, these Weather Control capabilities can wipe out an entire ecological system.

      . Damage, injury, or destruction of the “lithosphere” of a nation refers to “the solid outer layer of the earth” which “lies above the semi-fluid asthenosphere [30-150 miles down] and includes the crust and the solid part of the mantle down to about 75 kilometers (47 miles).” This is the area where earthquakes occur.

      . Damage, injury, or destruction of the “atmosphere”–including Outer Space–of a nation, or group of nations.

Note that emphasis is placed on protecting the environment, the atmosphere, and earth itself, not earth’s inhabitants.

The 2025 report clearly indicates that the researchers had accessed a number of weather modification resources dating to 1968, with several focused on fog dispersal, a common problem for all aircraft.

Not included in the paper’s bibliography is the document, Case Study 2: Weather Modification: The Evolution of an R&D Program into Military Action, which may have played a role leading to the UN Convention.

The leading paragraphs state:

    In an obscure Vietnamese publication on the history of the battle of Dien Bien Phu, the following notation appears under the entry for April 23, (1954)

      The General Staff of General Navarre sent a radio message to (General) Cogny informing him that on April 24, 150 baskets of activated charcoal and 150 bags of ballast would be flown from Paris for the making of artificial rain aimed at impeding our movement and supply.

    Assuming the event took place as reported, it had no known effect or consequences. It is interesting to recall that french forces apparently had initiated the use of chemical agents in World War I in a similarly amateurish fashion. On this occasion the consequences were fortunately not the same.

    In (the) summer of 1972, however, it was reported that the United States had been using weather modification techniques in the Indochina War from 1967 through 1972 in an effort to increase rainfall as an adjunct to military operations. Several U.S. Congressional Hearings then followed, both in the Senate and the House, and in one of these two years later in 1974, an official administration confirmation of the program was made. With these events as stimulii weather and climate modification and environmental warfare entered onto the scene of international concern and coincidentally also rapidly into international negotiations.

    Pressure from the US Congress, which was at the time concerned with several exotic forms of US military usage in the Indochina theater was one factor. But a more important one was probably the coincidence of the ongoing but lagging US/USSR SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) and the felt political need in both the US and the USSR to provide for new agreements at forthcoming summit meetings that were anticipated in the middle-1970′s. This situation served to direct more government attention to the subject than might otherwise have occured.

The paper next refers to the 1973 report, Weather and Climate Modification, Problems and Prospects, which is more concerned with fog dispersal than military aspects. The authors pointed out that only one of 258 pages even mentioned miliary concerns.

There is only one brief reference to war use:

    In considering the prospect of controlled weather modification, we are acutely aware that just because science and technology may develop the capability to modify weather there is no reason to assume that society should automatically use that capability. Weather modification appears to be one way of achieving certain goals … possible applications of weather modification for aggressive military purppses provide further urgent reasons for pursuing international agreement on activities that could seriously affect the weather of regions beyond national borders.

However, the report does provide a disclaimer:

    During the course of this study, no attempt was made by the Panel to examine classified experimental programs or to ascertain the existence of classified experimental programs in weather modification.

Does this mean that the U.S. is NOT engaged in weather modification/control/tampering/warfare research or exploits? Not at all.

However, given the current administration’s worship of all things promoted, advocated, or prohibited by the UN, it’s very unlikely you will ever hear about it — at least for the next four years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s